Slashdot Mirror
University Bans Wireless Access Points
Slayk writes "The University of Texas at Dallas has adopted a policy of disallowing the use of 802.11b/g access points outside of those used for the campus-wide wireless network. While they have an understandable concern with ensuring the accessability of the school network, the rights of the students to use the unlicensed 2.4GHz spectrum in the privacy of their own apartment are obviously being regulated by a body that is not the FCC. Students have until the 15th of September to comply with the policy, disable their wireless equipment, and string cat5 over the floor, or be subject to 'disciplinary action.'"
If those apartments belong to the University, and the presence of your access point harms/disrupts the operation of their own network then to me it looks like it is well within the rights of the university to demand this - and as they can't single out a specific access point to cause the problem it seems just that they require ALL to be shut down.
On the other if those apartments do not belong to the university, then I wouldn't see how they should even try and enforce this.
In either case, it's not much of an issue - and it's not a freedom of speech / censorship issue, since they DO allow private access to the internet by wired means...
The college has a perfect right to restrict the use of those devices on their property. Perhaps the submitter/editor doesn't understand that you can tell people what to do on your property. You don't have a fundamental right to install a Wifi router wherever you see fit.
Big deal...
Go buy an 802.11a access point...and operate at 5Ghz
Sure....it costs more and has less range but it should be adequate.
They don't have "rights" to use the spectrum if the University doesn't allow it. The fact is, those students are subject to the rules and regulations of their student handbook and University policies. As others have undoubtedly already said (because they type faster than I) - if they're living in University-owned apartments or dormitories, then the University can do what it wants. If the property is not owned/affiliated with the University, then there's no way it will be enforced. I think this is likely a nice troll story to start off my Thursday morning.
Then again, I went to a private University with must stricter rules than any public school. Even then, they weren't that bad. But I learned nice and quick that the school makes the rules and you're the one that is choosing to attend. That doesn't mean you have a "right" to attend. It's a little different with public schools, but the idea is still the same.
It's not quite that simple...while the rooms might be theirs, the radio spectrum everywhere is regulated as public property under the FCC's authority. When they say everybody has a right to a portion of it, no one else is allowed to keep others from using it. Their ownership of property where that radio transmission will occur has no bearing on that.
Given a choice between free speech and free beer, most people will take the beer.
Well, clearly the University can't prevent the students from operating the wireless points just because they are the landlords. But can they do it as part of the student agreement? Can they do it in a housing contract? My questions are:
1) Can a landlord restrict use of a technology by explicitly putting it in the contract? The answer may seem obvious, but keep in mind that anyone can put up a DirecTV dish in their apartment no matter what the landlord says. And if they were allowed to, would landlords start restricting the use of WiFi as part of their contract or demand payement for it? I think that's what the FCC is trying to avoid.
2) Can the university bar the access points as a condition of being an enrolled student? If so, can they also ban other legal activities such as gambling, marching in protest or interracial dating? Not sure of the answer, but my guess is they can't.
I'm inclined to believe that the U. is without recourse here, at least one an affected student gets a lawyer. If they wanted to control the spectrum, they should've used a licensed band instead. I expect the policy won't last long.
I have the strangest feeling that "apartment" means "dorm room" in this context. At least, the article gave no indication that the problem was being caused by students living off-campus. So, the first problem is that they're renting space from the school. The school certainly has the right to set ground rules on their own property.
The second problem is that it's the school's network that's getting boned by this behavior, and that means that students' wireless networks are screwing over other students. The school also has the right to set ground rules regarding on-campus network usage.
In any case, nobody ever died because they had to use Cat5. I did it at my alma mater for four years, because either nobody had or nobody could afford wireless gear at the time. I'm sure you and your classmates will survive, somehow, this minor restriction in privilege.
Canthros
Anyone who signs up for college agrees to follow their rules practices. That's a contract, and its binding. They can't stop you from using the unlicensed spectrum, but they can kick you off their campus, as its theirs.
Similarly, I've a right to use my cellphone, but if I try it on an airplane, they'll kick me off.
I've a right to privacy, but if I try and board an airplane without ID, they'll tell me to fuck off.
It's their property, and they decide what you can and cannot do while you're on it.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
While they have an understandable concern with ensuring the accessability of the school network, the rights of the students to use the unlicensed 2.4GHz spectrum in the privacy of their own apartment are obviously being regulated by a body that is not the FCC.
The comment above from the original poster seems to be a bit on the daft side. Sure, it's unlicensed. However, they are providing access to the school network. They aren't infringing on any rights of students by protecting their own network.
If it were me, I'd have said "get rid of them, or you can pay our internal security guy $200/hr, with 2 hours minimum, plus cost of hardware, to come out and install our own wireless AP in your place"
It's stupid, uninformed, biased crap like the original comment above that makes people look more, and more stupid as time goes by.
This whole story should be modded Score:-1, Overrated. A university apartment is *not* the student's property - it's *university* property and the university can impose regulations like this as they see fit. The FCC aren't going to care if a university prohibits the use of a non-University provided AP, there's no law stopping the University from forbidding the use of random APs brought in by students. If the student doesn't like the policy they are free to rent privately or go to another university. It's no different from a rule, say, forbidding students or staff from landing helicopters in the parking lot. That's not pre-empting the FAA which regulates airspace - it's simply the landowner (the university) imposing conditions of using their land.
Many apartment complexes have rules like you can't change your car's oil in their parking lot. This is really no different - if you don't like the rule, rent an apartment where the rules don't forbid 802.11b. It's entirely reasonable for the university to restrict 802.11b access points being plugged into *their* network too from a security point of view (non-secured AP + wardriver = nice big hole through any firewall they have).
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
It is as simple as that - Ever been to a LARGE conference (1000+) that offers wireless ? Every time I have gone - it takes about 2 days for the networking people to shutdown all of the stupid idiots that have open wireless on their laptops so the network can stabalize.
So what you are asking for is for the University to not be allowed to run a stable wireless network.
This is one of the worst problems with the use of an unregulated band - anyone can push a signal there, making interference the norm. Of course if it was regulated, none of us could use the spectrum, and it would be useless.
I think a happy medium is for the University to provide a wireless network, and then ask its users to not build a second network inside of it - to reduce interference. After all, how would you like it if I started broadcasting an encrypted wireless network in such a way that you couldn't use your wireless connection - or it always interfered and you could never get a clean signal ?
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
There are certain things the government has decreed are not legal, even if you put them in a contract.
A contract that says I'll work for you for less than the legal minimum wage is unenforceable.
A lease that says I can't install a DBS dish under any circumstances is unenforceable.
A lease that says I can't use a HAM radio on the property is unenforceable.
A property deed that says I can never resell the property to someone with a different skin color than mine is unenforceable.
And in this case,
A lease that says I can't install a wireless access point in unlicensed spectrum is unenforceable.
This
Actually, it is affecting the rights of the students to use a portion of the public spectrum. The FCC has ruled that only it can regulated access to that spectrum. Thus, the unversities are clealy violating student's rights.
However, I do think that any university has the right to keep its own network from being accessed via a WAP.
So, for example, let's assume a dorm with two students with one computer each. They have the right to set up file sharing between those computers via a WAP. The university has no right to stop that. However, the university has every right to restrict the sharing of its network.
I guess it all depends on how a university is banning WAPs. If its an all-out ban. Than the univeristy is violating the students' rights. However, if a university is only banning WAPs which connect to its own network, such a ban would be legal.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Right, except in this case, if you RTFA, the access points in question are in use by students using third party ISPs such as Comcast or some DSL provider. Your point is right on but doesn't particularly apply in the specific case that this article is referencing.
I doubt the FCC would accept that "loophole" - it erodes their authority. The university could simply progressively ban more and more things that use the 2.4GHz spectrum.
not ban having heat in your apartment
There is no federal law allowing everyone to use heat and saying that the Federal Heat Authority is the only organization allowed to regulate the use of the spectrum.
banning Wireless APs does not ban the use of the 2.4 range
It bans the use of the 2.4GHz range for Wireless APs - which is the same as regulating it. They could try banning antennas which broadcast at 2.4GHz as well, saying "we're not banning the use of the spectrum!" but I'd still say they're full of it.
And also!
Remember that you can use certain wireless cards as APs, using the "hostap" driver. The university can't ban wireless cards, obviously, as they need the students to be able to use them! And if it tries to say "You can't use the wireless cards as APs" that is clearly them attempting to regulate the unlicensed portion of the spectrum. They can't do this - they overstepped their authority.
Dude, did you read the policy page? It specifically mentioned that most of the 'problem' AP's were connected to Cable Modem, DSL, or other providers, not part of the University network. And it didn't say that you couldn't attach an AP to their network. It said you could only use 5Ghz APs in the building at all.
Federal laws and regulations trump state law, via the "supremacy clause" of the US constitution.
Normally, yes, but just as a university can ban alcohol on their premises, they can also ban the use of other items, on university property. It's their property, so they set the rules.
Just as a store can disallow the use of cell phones, a university can say that you can't use certain wireless equipment on their property. You're not breaking a law by doing so, but you're breaking the "rules" of the institution and they're within their rights to remedy the situation if someone breaks the rules.
This isn't a legal issue, so don't confuse it. This follows along with other "rules". Perhaps they have a rule that you have to attend a certain number of classes to pass. If you don't, you fail the class. That's rule, not law. There is no law that affects it. Just as there are no laws preventing them from using wireless equipment. Simply rules.
This post is probably going to get buried in the deluge of flames and arguments going on here, but I have to say it. I've recently noticed a trend in the Slashdot forums, rabid dog behaviour. Disgruntled people jumping in to attack whatever they feel is too restrictive. And its just not the forums, even the articles that our "esteemed editors" are approving seem to be of the same type - "Little fry vs big unyielding giant". It's not always wrong to enforce unyielding rules.
No. They have arbitrarily decided to ban access points from their dorms. They can do that because it's their land and they can do whatever the hell they want with it, including telling you you're not allowed to have phone books or any other damn thing. You *always* have to abide by the rules of the dorm. Yes, it's absurd, for example, to tell adults that they are not allowed to have sex in a dorm they have paid to live in, but nevertheless a court will support the school's right to tell them so.
If this were only a matter of signal, then yes, the students would win. But the students are putting a banned object onto school property. Not ok.
+++ATH0
But could it be defended in a court of law if it ever got there? No. My university has the same same policy on wireless access points in residences. I don't live in the residences, so I can't provide any personal experience on the matter, but I haven't heard anything about actual enforcement of this policy. The reason they do it (as stated in this article) is that it can interfere with the operation of the university's wireless network. I think they have the "policy" more to scare students out of installing APs than to actually prohibit it.
Don't blame me -- I voted for Roslin.